ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies as social mediators (was:Ontologydevelopm

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 15:38:18 -0600
Message-id: <5C7831C0-C899-4EEC-A123-5FC6CADE37F0@xxxxxxxx>
On Dec 2, 2009, at 3:14 PM, FERENC KOVACS wrote:
> Chris M wrote:
> 
>> If what you say is true, you should be able to give a valid argument for it. 
>However, if what you say is true, it will not be possible for you to do so, 
>since a valid argument must depend on the validity of the basic laws of logic. 
>Hence, what you say is not true. (Of course, you will not accept this argument 
>since it depends on the argument pattern Reductio Ad Absurdum, which according 
>to you is not endorsed by reason and hence, presumably, is not valid.)
> 
> A proposal in a natural language may not be identical withn itself. E.g. No 
>one likes to be contradicted =/ No one likes to be contradicted Or: Everyone 
>loves finding another one in contradiction with him/herself Subject to the 
>emphasis you may vary when reading it out, you will have diferent meanings 
>exposed.  Or in simple English: I want to pay you for your contribution. Each 
>"content" word may be emphasized, gramamr words cannot, they will not change 
>the meaning that way. they are like nuts and bolts, So it is the FOCUS that 
>will vary meaning. You need to know where the fpcus is in a statement. But 
>normally, our focus is very limited and missing in writing. Old grammarians 
>believe that words are in the centre of semantic analysis, but they are not. 
>they also believe that there are such things as abstract nouns and conrete 
>nouns, which is not correct either. Identity is Not objective and fixed and a 
>law. Do you want me to elabrate on that? There is an abstract-concrete and 
>generic-specific continuum which is the reflection of one's knowledge or 
>learnedness. Do you want me to go into the details of that?    (01)

I can't imagine that would be a good use of either your time or mine.  By my 
admittedly dim lights, every assertion you make above is either obviously false 
or meaningless.  No offense intended, that's just the honest truth.  Let's just 
say we live in different worlds and leave it at that.    (02)

Chris Menzel    (03)


> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Christopher Menzel" <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
> To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 6:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies as social mediators 
> (was:Ontologydevelopment method)
> 
> 
>> On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:51 AM, FERENC KOVACS wrote:
>>> ...I find that the basic laws of logic, i. e. the law of identity, etc. 
>>> are not endorsed by reason seeing truth as the ultimate criteria of 
>>> anything worth stating and accepting as plausible knowledge.
>> 
>> If what you say is true, you should be able to give a valid argument for 
>> it. However, if what you say is true, it will not be possible for you to 
>> do so, since a valid argument must depend on the validity of the basic 
>> laws of logic.  Hence, what you say is not true.  (Of course, you will not 
>> accept this argument since it depends on the argument pattern Reductio Ad 
>> Absurdum, which according to you is not endorsed by reason and hence, 
>> presumably, is not valid.)
>> 
>>> On the contrary, they are endorsed by emotion and will,
>> 
>> So I guess it follows for you (although how can it *follow* if there are 
>> no objectively valid logical laws by which one thing follows from 
>> another?) that there can be no debates.  Rather, on your telling, we 
>> simply throw out our opinions (all of them ungrounded in argument, it 
>> appears) and hope that others will accept them in virtue of a sudden flood 
>> of emotion or a non-rational act of will.  And, indeed, reading through 
>> your post, it does appear to be simply a series of assertions with nary an 
>> argument to be found so you do appear to be consistent on that score.
>> 
>>> since truth is something people are ready to fight for and anything 
>>> claimed to be not true would normally upset the person claiming that 
>>> point, if challenged.
>> 
>> I hope I haven't upset you. ;-)
>> 
>> Chris Menzel    (04)

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (05)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>